I love it when my sexuality is likened to sins by
politicians. It makes me feel alive, fearless, and oh so, so gay. I mean gay,
fabulously, in the new and the old sense of the word. Who can forget Trent
Lott’s aria about homosexuality being akin to alcoholism? I thought, Sousy,
you’re really going to burn in Republican hell if they stay in power. Thank
God!

Now a similar prickly gay controversy has been ignited by
U.S. senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who told the Associated
Press this past weekend that homosexuality is no better than bigamy, incest,
and adultery. Well, he’s right, really—if he’s talking about those
documented cases of bigamous homosexuals having sex with his children and the
neighbors.

But for the rest of us gays, he’s taken a wrong
political turn at the intersection of Queer Street and Homophobia Boulevard,
where nobody is going to pick him up. I don’t even think Jesse Helms himself
would have made such a costly political blunder.

The issue came up for Santorum when he was asked about
the impending decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of
sodomy laws. The case of Lawrence v. Texas concerns two gay men who were
arrested for having sex in one man’s home after the police were called to
the scene by an anonymous phone call. Texas is one of a few states whose
antiquated sodomy statutes apply exclusively to homosexuals, and many court
watchers think that inequity alone might be enough to sink the law. In a
statement to the AP, Santorum suggested that maybe the U.S. Constitution
doesn’t cover homosexuals—and that, in fact, it promises no one any
privacy whatsoever. And that’s a good thing, he said.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to
consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you
have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right
to adultery,” said the senator. “You have the right to anything. All of
those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family…. It
all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist, in
my opinion, in the United States Constitution.”

Oh, really, Mr. Santorum? I would suggest that you that
you read that document again. The Constitution—and the Bill of Rights and
the many amendments that have followed—is based the democratic ideals of
individual freedom. As the Declaration of Independence put it, our Founding
Fathers believed that everyone deserves “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness,” not a cop in every bedroom. Although Mr. Santorum’s stream of
consciousness might be refreshing in an age of scripted politicians (or should
I say “scriptured” politicians?), one wonders whether he is deliberately
inept, conspicuously malicious, or just a garden-variety opportunist.

Certainly, gay rights initiatives have been completely
stymied since September 11, 2001, and they are not currently part of the
language of either Republican or Democratic political landscape. But the way
Santorum lumps things together into immoral soup speaks to an undeniable
political ineptitude in this era of media exactness.

At his age, he has without a doubt been privy to
run-of-the-mill gay people publicly, politically, and personally, and it’s
alarming that he can think that he can get away with such divisive tactics.
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, called Santorum’s
remarks “marginalizing or attacking an entire segment of the population.”

Now let’s dissect his political judgments against gays.
Everybody, from beloved relatives to popes and presidents to kings and even
queens (my kind and his kind) has committed adultery, for many reasons—and
like consensual gay sex, that’s not the government’s business. Who cares
besides Oprah? As for bigamy or polygamy, well, it’s hard to declare a
public contract of marriage to multiple spouses in the privacy of one’s
bedroom. That’s not polygamy; that’s an orgy. Again, not the
government’s business.

What I really take exception to is Santorum comparing
homosexuality to incest, with the distinct implication of child abuse. Can he
say “consenting adult”? Throwing incest in there, when everyone will hear
“pedophilia,” plays directly to the Republican Party’s extreme right
wing, whose single agenda is to cast gays as predatory pedophiles who want to
recruit their sons and daughters into a life of sin. Hearing Santorum, the
third-highest-ranking member of the GOP Senate leadership, it struck me that
some people don’t know where politics, legislation, and religious creeds
stop and personal, secular decisions begin.

At the 2000 Republican convention, held in Philadelphia,
I attended a “gay-friendly” shindig hosted by the gay group Log Cabin
Republicans. As the only visible Democrat at that event, I was told by the
local Log Cabin president, David Greer, that gays would be welcome among
“the top echelon” of the party, which would include George W. Bush (whose
official response to Santorum has been to decline to comment—a tacit
endorsement). At the same time the gay party faithful were congratulating
themselves on breaking the pink barrier within the Republican Party in 2000,
down the street on the convention floor the Republicans were cleansing the
party platform of any language that would be inclusive of gay rights issues,
legalities, or concerns.

Santorum’s remarks are a reminder that Republican
homophobia is alive and well and thriving in Washington.